Post navigation

Progress and patents, a CRISPR news roundup

After briefly fading from the media spotlight, CRISPR, the genome-engineering tool that caused widespread consternation at the end of 2015, when a Chinese group first reported applying the technique in (non-viable) human embryos, is staging a comeback in the public eye amidst an ongoing patent dispute between UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute.

Google trends data for CRISPR over the past 12 months

Granted, the proportion of the population that cares deeply about genome editing pales in comparison to the number of concerned individuals asking Google about Zika Virus.

And even the fearsome zoonotic flavivirus cannot hold a candle to the mind-share occupied by one particular orange-haired candidate in the American presidential campaign.

Church couched his optimism with acknowledgement that the fickle forces of public opinion sometimes run counter to scientific consensus, saying:

“It’s an extraordinarily exciting time for scientists, in particular, those involved in reading and writing genomes. It should be an exciting time for everybody and also a scary time for scientists and everybody, where an increasing number of decisions of politicians, CEOs, and regular citizens depend on some technical nuance and expertise.”

One effort to introduce nuance to the discussion, December’s International Summit on Human Gene Editing, gave eminent researchers from across scientific disciplines, along with ethicists, historians, and philosophers a public platform to air concerns and attempt build consensus on a morally acceptable future for the field.

I was not invited…I can’t imagine why?

Leading up to the summit, prominent researchers called for open discussion to establish a prudent path forward for research. Scholars wrote insightful articles, such as Sheila Jasanoff, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, and Krishnau Saha’s discussion of potential socioeconomic and democratic issues surrounding access to genome-editing. Even theologians used CRISPR as a jumping off point to ponder the philosophical implications of human enhancement; Gilbert Meilaender, writing for The New Atlantis mused on the muddy moral strictures and sometimes difficult to distinguish ethical boundaries between disease cures and performance-enhancing drugs.

Why is altering genomes with CRISPR more objectionable than selective breeding?

Unfortunately, most of the discourse surrounding CRISPR from the popular science press tends to breathlessly predict a dystopian future populated by beautiful, bouncing designer babies.

Subtle.

Genome-engineered mutant children with fabulous hair have, as yet, failed to materialize, and most mainstream media outlets have, predictably, lately devoted less attention to CRISPR. News coverage of controversial technologies typically follows an issue attention cycle, first described by Anthony Downs in 1972. After the initial flurry of excitement during the discovery phase, shiny new innovations fade from prominence when the cold-hard realities, costs, and complexities come to light.

Early talks between parties in the patent scuffle seem to indicate that the Broad Institute may prevail, according to Sharon Begley, writing for STAT news. However, given the Gordian Knot of complexity that is United States Patent Law, observers should take care to avoid over-interpreting preliminary data from the dispute. These first salvos haven’t even established what issues are the most important things to fight about yet, according to Andrew P. Han in a piece for GenomeWeb.

New developments continue to pour forth almost daily. The technology directly influences thousands of publications, millions of research dollars, and untold billions of DNA base-pairs. However, questions surrounding the safety and efficacy of the tool, including the propensity to make off-target mutations, still remain, as noted by Mary Bates in a piece for IEEE PULSE.

The more we know…the less we know.

Regardless of the outcome of the legal disputes, the community will likely continue to adopt and adapt this phage-defense system from single-celled organisms to benefit humanity. Few could predict that yogurt-producing bacteria would yield one of the most transformative tools in modern genetic research, though synthetic biologists are quick to recognize the power of using systems from life to benefit humanity.

Score one for basic science, score one for bacteria and score one for yogurt!

As a community, Synthetic Biologists can ensure public support for their efforts through continuous open discourse. As George Church noted to Edge, scientists who don’t engage give up their right to gripe when decisions get made without their input, saying:

“Don’t complain about being excluded from a discussion if you’re excluding yourself from that discussion. That’s the power of the community of intellectuals that are trying to reach out to everybody in the world. It’s not intended to be an exclusive club. It’s intended to be a conversation.”

Post navigation

As PLOS Senior Social Media & Community Editor, Victoria Costello oversees the organization’s social media efforts and manages the PLOS BLOGS Network. Prior to joining PLOS in 2012, Costello worked as an science journalist and author in the areas of psychology and neuroscience. orcid.org/0000-0002-8715-2896